Family Start
The Herald reports:
The Government’s biggest home visiting programme is under review after researchers found its US counterpart failed to reduce child abuse.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has called for an evaluationof the former Labour Government’s flagship Family Start programme, which costs $29 million a year.
Ahem. That programme was not a Labour flagship. It was started by National in the late 1990s.
It follows the discovery by American researchers that Healthy Start in Hawaii – the model for the New Zealand version – did not prevent abuse, mainly because workers did not have enough training to recognise the danger signs and take action.
The researchers also found the strategy had shifted from home visitors identifying the key triggers of abuse – such as violence, drug and alcohol abuse and post-natal depression – to “strength-based” goal-setting by the families themselves.
One mother’s goal, approved by the home visitor, was “to be happy”.
Hmmn. I not conversant with the details of how it has morphed over time, but it used to be regarded very highly as making a real difference with some dysfunctional families. It sounds like they are skimping on training, and have gone a bit politically correct if it is now all about goal setting instead of identifying and preventing abuse.
Professor Anne Duggan, who led the research into Healthy Start and is working as a visiting specialist in Auckland, said New Zealand’s Family Start seemed to be “a wonderful resource for families” and she did not think it should be scrapped.
I would hope it is not scrapped also. If changes are needed, change them but the concept of a one stop support shop for families is I think a very sound one.
Oh and can some-one shoot the sub-editor:
FAMILY START
* Cost: $29 million a year
* Created by Labour in 1998
* Goal: Providing home-based support for families with high needs and identifying key triggers before problems occur.
* Problem: Lack of training to recognise danger signs of child abuse.
* Researchers found that Healthy Start in Hawaii, on which Family Start was based, did not prevent abuse and merely allowed families to set their own targets.
I can almost excuse a general assumption being wrong about which Government started it, but not knowing Labour was not Government in 1998 is inexcusable.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Since when did the media care about being correct?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Doesnt sound like a story that the newspaper ‘found’ all by its self.
Seems like its ghostwritten by a member of Bennetts staff and handed on plate to the newspaper – Pravda style.
Its not really news. Was all written up by Thursday last week.
And they wonder why their circulation is 175000 and falling
November 16th, 2009 at 10:15 am
This is the MSM we are talking about David. I imagine it was a cut and paste mistake from someone else’s mistake.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Targeting support for at-risk families should be a no brainer:
The question then is what can be done when high risk families are identified. And further, if one or more ethnic groups are over represented in the high-risk candidates, are we brave enough to endure the shouts of ‘Racism!’ from the hand-wringing social liberals when attempting to deliver support?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:35 am
DPF said: Oh and can some-one shoot the sub-editor
Another one up against the wall next to Phil Goff!
November 16th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Milton Friedman observed decades ago that social programs which make good sense on paper and work well on a small scale often fail to produce results when scaled up. The reason, according to Friedman, is that these programs start out with staff who are hand picked, highly committed, and knowledgeable (they know the population they are working with and know the program itself thoroughly because they were present as it developed). But as they scale up these programs add staff who are less committed, less capable, and less knowledgeable, and the result is that the scaled up versions are ineffective.
Social programs should in fact have two distinct pilot stages. One to test whether the initial idea works, and a second to test whether a large number of new staff can be trained to apply that idea effectively.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Makes sense Dr.
I think Family Start has the right intentions, better that they review and resource it properly to make it more effective. It makes sense to try and address problems at the earliest stages possible. It may cost more in the short term to do it well but the payback should be much larger.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Twenty nine million pissed up against the wall on this kind of unproductive feel good bullshit, and English says there’s no money for tax cuts.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:51 am
DPF on NZ Herald: but not knowing Labour was not Government in 1998 is inexcusable.
I think the layers and layers of fact checkers got in the way…
November 16th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Dr Strangelove, There is also a difficulty in ‘professionalising’ charitable intervention, often the hallmark of a small programme. People paid to help have different motivations from those not paid. And the perception of those receiving the help also changes. Too heavier workload will also result in much faster burn-out with this type of work.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
MSM fail.
And research the proportion of “qualified social workers” who are childless 22-year-old girls with Bachelor’s Degrees in Social Work, reading from the Manual as they go because they have absolutely no idea, for the reason the Family Start programme underwhelms.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I agree with the DR….Most of these types of programmes are hyped up as successful when in reality they are a waste of resource and not cost effective. The only real test would be a parallel control group for comparison over a set period.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
That could be difficult, this can be long term stuff.
Most people seem to want something done about poor parenting and violence in families – what should be done if this was to be dropped?
November 16th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Kahui twins had Family Start involvement…
November 16th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
How about a program for for working, taxing paying, law abiding, long suffering Kiwis!!!!!!
Now that’s what I would like to fucking see.
Perhaps if the dropkicks in our society were ignored and their benefits giving back to those that actually produced them then maybe a few might get with the program. Either that or let the bastards starve, I for one won’t be shedding any tears. You can only be your brothers keeper for so long.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
nice, Bob, nice. Next time I meet a half-dead kid I’ll send it to your house for a dose of compassion.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Maybe the nine years was an eternity so people think anything in the past was done by Labour?